Chapter
XXIV.—Formulary of the Council of Ariminum approved by
the Acacians. List of the Deposed Chief-Priests, and the Causes of
their Condemnation.

The partisans of Acacius13441344 The acts of this Synod of Constantinople were
written by Acacius. Cf. Philost. iv. 12. Further, cf. Philost. iv. 12,
v. 1; Athan. de Synodis, 30, the formulary; Soc. ii. 41 (with
the revised formulary), 42, 43; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 27, 28.
Soz. enlarges on the depositions, giving us much new material;
Theodoret gives a letter against Aetius (from Sabinus?).
remained some time at Constantinople, and invited thither several
bishops of Bithynia, among whom were Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, and
Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths. These prelates having assembled together,
in number about fifty, they confirmed the formulary read at the council
of Ariminum, adding this provision, that the terms “substance
” 320and
“hypostasis” should never again be used in reference to
God. They also declared that all other formularies set forth in times
past, as likewise those that might be compiled at any future period,
should be condemned. They then deposed Aëtius from his office of
deacon, because he had written works full of contention and of a
species of vain knowledge opposed to the ecclesiastical vocation;
because he had used in writing and in disputation several impious
expressions; and because he had been the occasion of troubles and
seditions in the Church. It was alleged by many that they did not
depose him willingly, but merely because they wished to remove all
suspicion from the mind of the emperor which he had with regard to
them, for they had been accused of holding Aëtian views. Those who
held these sentiments took advantage of the resentment with which, for
reasons above mentioned, the emperor regarded Macedonius, and they
accordingly deposed him, and likewise Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus;
Basil, bishop of Ancyra; Heortasius, bishop of Sardis; and Dracontius,
bishop of Pergamus. Although they differed about doctrine from those
bishops, yet in deposing them, no blame was thrown upon their faith,
but charges were alleged against them in common with all, that they had
disturbed the peace and violated the laws of the Church. They
specified, in particular, that when the presbyter Diogenes was
traveling from Alexandria to Ancyra, Basil seized his papers, and
struck him; they also deposed that Basil had, without trial, delivered
over many of the clergy from Antioch, from the banks of the Euphrates,
and from Cilicia, Galatia, and Asia, to the rulers of the provinces, to
be exiled and subjected to cruel punishments, so that many had been
loaded with chains, and had been compelled to bribe the soldiers, who
were conducting them away, not to ill-use them. They added that, on one
occasion, when the emperor had commanded Aëtius and some of his
followers to be led before Cecropius, that they might answer to him for
various accusations laid to their charge, Basil recommended the person
who was intrusted with the execution of this edict, to act according to
the dictates of his own judgment. They said that he wrote directions to
Hermogenes,13451345 Further mention is made of this Hermogenes by Am.
Marcell. xix. 12, 6; xxi. 6, 9.
the prefect and governor of Syria, stating who were to be banished, and
whither they were to be sent; and that, when the exiles were recalled
by the emperor, he would not consent to their return, but opposed
himself to the wishes of the rulers and of the priests. They further
deposed that Basil had excited the clergy of Sirimium against
Germanius; and that, although he stated in writing that he had admitted
Germanius, Valens, and Ursacius into communion, he had placed them as
criminals before the tribunal of the African bishops; and that, when
taxed with this deed, he had denied it, and perjured himself; and that,
when he was afterwards convicted, he strove to justify his perjury by
sophistical reasoning. They added, that he had been the cause of
contention and of sedition in Illyria, Italy, Africa, and in the Roman
church; that he had thrown a servant into prison to compel her to bear
false witness against her mistress; that he had baptized a man of loose
life, who lived in illicit intercourse with a woman, and had promoted
him to be a deacon; that he had neglected to excommunicate a
quack-doctor who had occasioned the death of several persons; and that
he and some of the clergy had bound themselves by oath before the holy
table, not to bring accusations against each other. This, they said,
was an artifice adopted by the president of the clergy to shield
himself from the accusations of his plaintiffs. In short, such were the
reasons they specified for the deposition of Basil. Eustathius, they
said, was deposed because, when a presbyter, he had been condemned, and
put away from the communion of prayers by Eulalius, his own father, who
was bishop of the church of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia; and also
because he had been excommunicated by a council held at
Neocæsarea, a city of Pontus, and deposed by Eusebius, bishop of
Constantinople, for unfaithfulness in the discharge of certain duties
that had devolved upon him. He had also been deprived of his bishopric
by those who were convened in Gangrœ, on account of his having
taught, acted, and thought contrary to sound doctrine. He had been
convicted of perjury by the council of Antioch. He had likewise
endeavored to reverse the decrees of those convened at Melitina; and,
although he was guilty of many crimes, he had the assurance to aspire
to be judge over the others, and to stigmatize them as heretics. They
deposed Eleusius because he had raised inconsiderately one Heraclius, a
native of Tyre, to be a deacon; this man had been a priest of Hercules
at Tyre, had been accused of and tried for sorcery, and, therefore, had
retired to Cyzicus and feigned conversion to Christianity; and
moreover, Eleusius, after having been apprised of these circumstances,
had not driven him from the Church. He had also, without inquiry,
ordained certain individuals, who had come to Cyzicus, after they had
been condemned by Maris, bishop of Chalcedonia, who participated in
this council. Heortasius was deposed because he had been ordained
bishop of Sardis without the sanction of the bishops of Lydia. They
deposed Dracontius, bishop of Pergamus, because he had previously held
another bishopric in Galatia, and because, they stated, he had on both
occa321sions been unlawfully ordained.
After these transactions, a second assembly of the council was held,
and Silvanus, bishop of Tarsus, Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis in
Paphlagonia, Elpidius, bishop of Satala, and Neonas, bishop of Seleucia
in Isauria, were deposed. The reason they assigned for the deposition
of Silvanus was, that he had constituted himself the leader of a
foolish party in Seleucia and Constantinople; he had, besides,
constituted Theophilus as president of the church of Castabala, who had
been previously ordained bishop of Eleutheropolis by the bishops of
Palestine, and who had promised upon oath that he would never accept
any other bishopric without their permission. Sophronius was deposed on
account of his avarice, and on account of his having sold some of the
offerings presented to the church, for his own profit; besides, after
he had received a first and second summons to appear before the
council, he could, at last, be scarcely induced to make his appearance,
and then, instead of replying to the accusations brought against him,
he appealed to other judges. Neonas was deposed for having resorted to
violence in his endeavors to procure the ordination in his own church,
of Annianus, who had been appointed bishop of Antioch,13461346 Cf. iv. 22.
and for having ordained as bishops certain individuals who had
previously been engaged in politics, and who were utterly ignorant of
the Holy Scriptures and of ecclesiastical canons, and who, after their
ordination, preferred the enjoyment of their property to that of the
priestly dignity, and declared in writing that they would rather take
charge of their own possessions than to discharge the episcopal
functions without them. Elpidius was deposed because he had
participated in the malpractices of Basil, and had occasioned great
disorders; and because he had, contrary to the decrees of the council
of Melitina, restored to his former rank in the presbytery a man named
Eusebius, who had been deposed for having created Nectaria a deaconess,
after she had been excommunicated on account of violating agreements
and oaths; and to confer this honor upon her was clearly contrary to
the laws of the Church.